User talk:Fram/Archive 39

Dorea Academy

Hi, Fram! I created the page Dorea Academy, a school where my family goes to. It has it's address is available in Google Maps and it's social media account existing online. I wish to have the page for other people to know about the school's existence. (talk)

Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbert22ph (talk • contribs) 08:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Masjid 99 Kubah Makassar

Hi, Farm! I created a page for Masjid 99 Kubah Makassar, which is a mosque, public place for Muslim worship. It has already been branded as a new landmark for city of Makassar for its unique architecture. But that article is deleted within an hour without being discussed! thanks, Reza (talk)

Seaway 25

Hi, Fram! Thanks for noticing the copyvio problem at Seaway 25. I had a look at other contribs of the same editor and saw a good deal of stuff that rang vague alarm bells (this, for example), but nothing that I could verify to be problematic. If you happen to see any more bad edits from him/her, would you kindly let me know? Many thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think a lot of what they wrote is copied from offline sources (magazine articles), but I can't prove it without too much effort. Fram (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Strange email I received from user Elijahandskip

Hello Fram.

Having had no prior interaction with this user, I received a strange email from them this afternoon. Here is the full text:

---

Wikipedia <wiki@wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe 3:54 PM (3 hours ago) to SPECIFICO

Hello. I wanted to discuss with you a comment you made in an edit summary on the "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" article on August 22, 2021. You said "...when in fact they are unrelated to the Bidens..." which is extremely surprising since the title of the article actually says "Biden". Just by looking at the edit summary and not digging too deep into the article, I am questioning if you should continue to edit that article any further on Wikipedia. Trust me, I know how bad showing any political bias can be on Wikipedia. Heck, I fought admins tooth and nail and actually ended up having news articles put out about the big debate. But as a word of advice from an editor with less experience than you, but possibly more attention (Talking about the multiple news articles), try to keep your political bias out of editing and especially out of talk pages and edit summaries. It really does give a horrible vibe to others, even if it isn't indented.

This email was sent by user "Elijahandskip" on the English Wikipedia to user "SPECIFICO". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information about the recipient's email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose their identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. To manage email preferences for user ‪Elijahandskip‬ please visit <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mute/Elijahandskip>.

---

I replied that this should be raised on the article talk page rather than email. Then I looked at their user talk page and saw that they are topic-banned from this article, presumably leading to the use of email. I see that @El C and Cullen328: and others have been inolved with this user's ban and subsequent violations of it. I'm just bringing this to your attention, in case you think any action is necessary. No need to respond, this is just FYI for you and those who've had some involvement with this editor. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• This appears to be connected to this and is another topic ban violation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • They succeeded in getting their topic ban extended on the very last day, which is a remarkable feat. Fram (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

British Rail Locomotive 02 003

Hello Fram, I see you have proposed for deletion my new article about 02 003 and other class 02 shunters, I have made several big changes to 02 003 and I'm here to ask if that's enough in your mind to avoid deletion, if so I'll do the same modifications to the other 2 articles if not tell me what else I can add, Thank You

Hi. I see that you added lots of unreliable or unacceptable sources, like Pinterest, Flickr, maps, a fandom wiki, ... None of these sources do anything to establish notability. What you need are reliable, independent sources (like newspapers or books) giving significant attention to the article subject (the locomotive), not random people on the Internet. Fram (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Youth Institute of Technology

@Fram:. You nominated Youth Institute of Technology for deletion. This is a physical computer training institute established by Government of Pakistan and Government of Punjab, Pakistan. While for a public Educational institution according to WP:NSCHOOL only WP:ORG and WP:GNG required. You can found this institute is listed on different government websites. While on the other hand, the previous version was different that was a private institute and established in 2017. But this institute is established in 2019 as a public institute by the local government. You can also check deletion log, (everybodywiki.com/Youth_Institute_of_Technology) everybodywiki and deletionpedia the previous version was created in 2018, owned by Youth Group Limited and Iftikhar Traders. I think this should stay on Wikipedia.BilalCheemaKhan (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

How does this school meet WP:GNG? There only are official sources and databases. Fram (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a public school established by the local government. In countries like Pakistan, there will be no news references available for public schools. On the other end, official sources are from local government official websites. So, instead of deleting this article, we should place Template:Primary sources until this school has reliable secondary.BilalCheemaKhan (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that template means "secondary sources exist but haven't been added to the article", not "no secondary sources exist". In the latter case, the article should be deleted. Fram (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of London Underground Driving Motor 3701 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article London Underground Driving Motor 3701 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground Driving Motor 3701 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Note this nomnination also covers:

• London Underground Driving Motor 3209
• London Underground Driving Motor 3690
• London Underground Driving Motor 3706
• London Underground Driving Motor 3370

Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Please remove the mess you are making

Fram, please remove the messes you are adding to articles I have written, and remove the stuff you are putting on my talk page — Epipelagic (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hardly a mess, and not really clear which CC-BY license e.g. this one claims, but have reverted for now. Fram (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

When you treat someone badly you find the idea of an apology too difficult, don't you. Try some due diligence: look at this one and search on "creative commons", and please clean up the shrieking mess you left on my talk page. — Epipelagic (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't. When I do treat someone badly, I apologize. Tagging pages mistakenly as copyright violations is hardly "treating someone badly" though. You are free to remove any messages from your talk page (and again, "shrieking mess" is a bit of an overreaction to two bog-standard template notices). Fram (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Mistakenly tagging multiple articles written by long established editors as "copyright violations", and then leaving shrieking messes on their talk page, and then saying they are overreacting because they push back a bit, is definitely treating users badly. Except, I suppose, in the alternate universe occupied by you, Fram. If you are not particularly competent at determining whether something is a copyright violation, and it seems from your behaviour here that you are not, then you should assume good faith and not attack long established content builders just because attacking other users is what you do. — Epipelagic (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Since I mentioned you here regarding your work on the AC-template over-linking issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Kréintgeshaff

Proposed deletion, I'll have you know, I live near Kréintgeshaff, I've been there, it's labelled on the commune as a village, there is a regular school bus that serves just Kréintgeshaff and only Kréintgeshaff to provide the children who live there access to the public school in contern, it's adjacent to an indurstrial zone, it's notable, it's not just a farm N1TH Music (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Your own source says it's just a farm, and all else I can find indicates that it is simply a street with that farm and perhaps a few other houses. There is no indication of recognition as a separate village or of any other notability (being next to an industrial zone is hardly special). Without better sources, it will be deleted or redirected. Oh, and isn't "Kréintgeshaff" the Luxembourghish word, and the "Hoff" version a German word? The article has it the other way round. Fram (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I see there is a commons category Commons:Category:Kroentgeshof (Contern). There are multiple place name signs: 1, 2 with the name "Kroentgeshof". Other signs are indicating "Kréintgeshaff" 3. It's also clear it's not a farm as it is a populated area (see multiple sub categories). To me it feels like the town is notable, but a proper reference is missing. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A merge/redirect to Contern may be the best, it's not as if a lot can be said about it anyway. Fram (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Fram,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Bashereyre creations

I know the responsibility shouldn't be on you to move the process forwards, but thought I'd let you know that Bashereyre has explicitly announced departure, and since the ANI thread you started fizzled out, this leaves their 8000 creations in need of some kind of systematic review. Maybe we could do some sort of sample review of 100 creations to see exactly what problems we can expect at what frequencies. Not sure where the best venue is. — Bilorv (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That's always the problem with such large scale problems: stopping the influx of new ones sometimes succeeds (preferably by a change in approach by the editor, but sadly too often by them retiring), but getting rid of old issues is much harder (see also CCI investigations). Added to this is the situation that if I would be going through their contributions, some people would call it hounding and would use it as evidence against me if they ever needed it. Fram (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

- LouisAlain translated Kölnisches Stadtmuseum, - I had no time yet to check, It probably needs copy-editing and references, but I think it's a great gift. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Anune de wever’s page revert

Please clarify this reversion, and where else to put this noteworthy news. Deltaworkers (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I highly doubt this is noteworthy news and not just some one-day storm in a teacup (which will be endlessly exploited by the far right of course), but if it belongs in the article, then it should be one sentence in the body, not in the lead, indicating how some stupid remarks were widely (and correctly) criticized: not how some stupid remarks make them a terrible person and pretend that they are the most noteworthy thing about them. WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP all are at play here. Fram (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Adrie van der Poel

he spells his name "Adrie" on his twitter, and it is spelled so on his dutch wikipedia page and in virtually all articles

Huh, you're right! I just checked his article on enwiki, not Google, but perhaps his article then needs to be moved as well. Fram (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Parts in Vasari's Vite

Hello Fram, I'm working on splitting the German article on Vasari into one article on Vasari and a separate one on the Vite. Just like you some 14 years ago. With this edit, you soon changed the reflection of the original division (3 volumes, containing mostly biographies, those divided into 3 parts) into a 6-part division of the whole work. If you ask me, your 6-part division reflects neither the original division into 3 volumes nor the the original division of the biographies into 3 parts.

Your 6-part division has later been adopted in the German and other Wikipedia articles on the Vite or Vasari. Can you tell me, is there a reason why you introduced a 6-part division? Is there a source on which it is based? --Lektor w (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't remember where I got this division from. I guess I took it from some edition, but I can't find which one any longer. Fram (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. There must have been some source. As for the German article, I decided to switch back to the original three-volume and three-part structure of the work. And I just made some corrections in the English article. It seems nobody has ever noticed that the sentence "The following list respects the order of the book, as divided into its three parts" was no longer accurate after you had switched to the 6-part division 14 years ago. Lektor w (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. If you prefer to switch to a three-part version, feel free to do so (best indicate it on the talk page, so people know where the change comes from and that you are actually following the division as in the original 1568 version). Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for encouring me. I just did it. I didn't use the talk page, I preferred commenting my edits. I think it's clear enough that it's better when we display the original order consistently. Instead of presenting our own six parts alongside pictures illustrating the original three-part order complete with comments mentioning the original parts I, II, III. --Lektor w (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Art galleries disestablished in 2004

A tag has been placed on Category:Art galleries disestablished in 2004 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A thing

I feel like this explains a lot -- they were a Wikipedia editor for 5 months in 2020, now they seem to be only a Wikipedia-as-a-forum user. --JBL (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, of their last 800 or so edits, 3 were to the main space. User:ARoseWolf, not wanting to talk behind your back here. Fram (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Want to review an draft

Hey User talk:Farm I saw your contribution you have very good experience about wiki draft reviewing and can make decision as per wiki guidelines. Could you check a draft if you have time. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

WP Essay: Pearl-clutching

I'm inviting you to give feedback on a WP essay of mine about pearl-clutching. I've seen you participate at ANI and would like your thoughts on whether you support or oppose such an essay. No obligation to review it, but thank you for your time if you do. ––FormalDude talk 12:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move notification

You might be interested in... :)

• 03 Oct 2021 – Fram (disambiguation) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Fram by Crouch, Swale (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Oct 2021 – Fram (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Fram (ship, 1892) by Crouch, Swale (t · c); see discussion

No such user (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I remember the Fram case being listed on the DAB but it was removed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1960 establishments in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

A tag has been placed on Category:1960 establishments in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Draftifying Draft:Geza Tarjanyi?

Hi, thanks for your attention on this article. Can you expand on your rationale for draftifying this article? I notice in the comments you mention that he is best known for things for which the charges were dropped? From what I can tell, this is incorrect - he is best known for things for which he was never charged, since they are arguably not actually a crime in the UK. He is best known for confronting public officials in relation to the COVID19 pandemic which he believes is a hoax. That's not illegal, but it almost certainly is antisocial. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

See the section "Harassment of Professor Van-Tam and Chris Whitty", including the last line. If he was charged with harassment, then harassment is illegal, and he shouldn't be said to be known for harassment in the lead is he isn't convicted for it. Fram (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you be more comfortable if the draft described him as being best known for "confrontations"? We could also use the exact same word that our source used which is "abused". These incidents have been widely reported in both national and regional press here in the UK. I think the only question that seems to be at stake is whether these confrontations constituted "criminal harassment". It seems that you, me and eventually the metropolitan police agree that they did not. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Confronting, protesting, ... whatever reliable sources use and which isn't accusing them of an actual crime. Fram (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Shall we continue the conversation on DDG's chat? Salimfadhley (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

apology

I'm obviously still going too fast, and too late at night.I will slow down. I may even take a break for a day or two at that sort of work. My fault.Thanks for following up on it. DGG ( talk )

No problem, once one is working in some pattern, it often takes an outsider to show the problems with it; changing the approach isn't always easy or instantaneous. Acknowledging the problems is a good first step, the rest will follow in due time. Fram (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sports link

The sports link template is used on over 29000 athlete page see Template:Sports_links I don't no why you don't want it used on one specific athlete page. Yachty4000 22:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yachty4000: in general, because Wikidata sucks and using templates like these is lazy, careless editing, hoping that another site will do it right, will not get vandalized, and so on. In this specific case, like I said, because it contains a double link to World Sailing, one of which doesn't work. I have no idea why you didn't, I don't know, test the actual links when someone opposed the addition; instead you chose to continue to insert this. Please, when someone objects, just skip that page (or add the links, after checking, manually instead of relying on another site) and move on to pages where there is no issue. Fram (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Indo sock farm

Hi Fram! Is there anything I can do to assist? It looks like the whole thing is turning into a Sisyphean whack-a-mole. They're move-warring all over the place. Unfortunately, I am not a page mover, and I don't want to leave redirects that shouldn't be there in first place. –Austronesier (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Austronesier! Thanks, but sadly there isn't much we can do further. Just hope that they tire of this game which takes a lot of their time and produces no results in the end. Fram (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Why have you removed approx. 100 "Wikimedia list article" descriptions from articles? They should all be changed to "Wikipedia list article," not removed. Chicdat (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia list article" is only marginally better than "Wikimedia list article". "Wikipedia" adds nothing to the understanding, neither does "list" (which is in tehe title of these lists", neither does "article". see WP:SDNONE. In the past, we replaced the "Wikimedia" one with the "Wikipedia" one because removing the description would only lead to a display of the Wikidata one again. Since then, two things have changed; we no longer show the Wikidata description even if we don't have one, and we have magic words like "none" which indicate that the description is deliberately blank (because a description is unnecessary for self-explanatory titles). Feel free to replace "none" with a description which is better, but please don't use the generic and rather empty "Wikipedia list article" any longer. Fram (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

All right. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there a guideline or decision you can point us to? Massive projects to change multiple articles like this should have a discussion first. I'll be restoring the standard description on any article on my watch list unless you can show me a discussion and decision on the matter. Skyerise (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Apart from "but discussion", do you have any actual reason you think "Wikimedia list article" is in any way a useful short description? Discussions at Wikipedia talk:Short description time and again agreed that both "Wikimedia list article" and "Wikipedia list article" should go, but at first went nowhere because not having a short desc wasn't an option then(Wikipedia_talk:Short_description/Archive_7#Lists), and later stranded on discussion how best to program a bot to do this (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 10). Fram (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1960 in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

A tag has been placed on Category:1960 in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Football vs European Football vs Associate Football

Globally the sport is known as simply football, but obviously that would cause confusion with American Football. I can however refute anyone calling it Associate football, apart from Americans probably. Like i said when American football and Spherical-ball football are compared, the term "European football" is most prefered. Source 1Source 2 Source 3

Yes i have also stumbled across Association Football countless times but the vast majority of the population arent aware of the term, including myself before. If soccer was put in brackets because it is used by the minority, then Associate Football is virtually unheard of in the Spherical-ball football world. This has already been raised in the page [[1]]. However if there is still a disagreement then i think "Football (FIFA)" would be probably the most appropriate and better choice than Associate Football. Cheers --LostCitrationHunter (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Dear. "Associate football"? "European Football"? Give me a break. Association football (or soccer) is what it's called. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yes, per The Rambling Man, "association football" or soccer is what the game is called in the country where it was invented; there's another kind of football there too, Rugby football. Hi, Fram! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a reason we still have clubs that start with AFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A Fed/Davis Cup closure discussion is being discussed for reopening

@Fram: Hey, there. I wanted to let you know there is a discussion going about reopening the discussion you started on SNG:Sports talk page about the removal of Davis and Fed cup from the sports notability guidelines. I am inviting to share your opinion on why you started the removal discussion, in the first place, since there is Your input would be much appreciated. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your redirection

I do not consider the work I am doing on titles of nobility to be "useless", when there is a singleton holder. Maybe you do. I think you should at least consider the set-index situation on a page such as Robinson baronets. There is a clear need to create set indices for these big aggregated pages. Typically up to 90% of the information on those pages is unreferenced.

The ontological situation is that the title is different from the person: often the title may exist for only a short part of a life. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In what way does the set index gets impacted by one or more of the entries being redirects instead of articles? Fram (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

At WP:SIA it says "The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list." At WP:SAL it says (WP:CSC)

"Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

• Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia."

On the face of it, there is an issue there, and so I'd think we're in the third case, Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.

I actually don't think the argument is very strong here, that the title must be merged. Duplication of content seems to be regulated operationally, by WP:PAM, rather than by a guideline. In any case it is not a case of "so obviously necessary and appropriate that no one is expected to object", per WP:PAM.

Charles Matthews (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I can make heads nor tails of your arguments against redirection (is it to create a Wikidata item? Is it because you fear someone will object to its inclusion in a set index, which is highly unlikely? Is it just because you can?). I'll start an AfD instead (which also deals with redirects which get objected against). Fram (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: I was unable to create a Wikidata item for the title. That was a temporary situation.

It seems to me that an AfD, therefore whether the title is a notable topic in itself, is not great for a topic that occurs in many reference works. Template:Infobox hereditary title has many fields. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1588 in Mexico

A tag has been placed on Category:1588 in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1612 in Mexico

A tag has been placed on Category:1612 in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1616 in Mexico

A tag has been placed on Category:1616 in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1781 in Mexico

A tag has been placed on Category:1781 in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

About Ali Mahir Aksu

Hello @Fram:, I translate the pages on the Turkish Wikipedia site in accordance with En Wiki. I delete some parts when creating the page. It's not for advertising purposes, I don't have a connection with the person. Please make arrangements to help me.--Alpdenizo (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the page seriously overstates his importance, he is not known in Hollywood at all but gets some attention in Turkey only it seems; and the articles uses unreliable sources like databases, press releases, and student newspapers. Fram (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The references I added were the ones used in the Turkish Wiki. For this reason, I have not hosted any new references. But on the "Lain in America" page and on other pages, the name "Ali Mahir Aksu" is mentioned.--Alpdenizo (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the rules at the Turkish Wikipedia, but on enwiki, such sources are in general unacceptable: see WP:RS for more information. And he is not mentioned at Laid in America. Fram (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag removal

Hii I'm star user I'm created this page it's a true page don't have any fake contents kindly remove the deletion tag and please give support this page Star user4 (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The page has been deleted multiple times, with many different titles, and you have been warned to stop this. You seriously risk getting blocked over these creations. Fram (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This user was just warned about this on the 23rd, I have blocked them for 1 week. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

subpages

First, thanks for moving my page. I didn't know about the no subpages in mainspace. Just to be sure, as this is my first time making a subpage outside my own space, is there any question about it that I should know? Rules on what should, or should not be, in subpages? Gah4 (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Subpages explains everything quite neatly. In mainspace: not allowed. Outside of mainspace: nearly everything goes (of course not copyvios, attacks, BLP violations, ... but that's not really a worry here). Fram (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I am always surprised to learn about some new WP: page. One more thing, though. When I first tried to make the page, it wouldn't let me, as it has a link to www.faqs.org, which apparently isn't allowed. That link existed in the original page, though. Otherwise, thanks again for fixing the page. Gah4 (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the mysteries of the blacklist (or edit filters). I'm very happy it exists, but I have no idea how exactly it works (old links are left alone, new ones are disallowed? No idea). Fram (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fram ..I need help to Speedy Delete af photo in the article Elisa Maria Boglino

Hi ...I just uploadet at photo "Seated Woman# to the article: Elisa Maria Boglino , and I need help to Speedy Delete it as quick as possible , as all the text about copyright should not have been published. Could you please help me with this?HNBS (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Hi...it is ok nowHNBS (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1618 establishments in Ukraine

A tag has been placed on Category:1618 establishments in Ukraine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Bashereyre

I was pleased to come across Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1078#User:Bashereyre. While I didn't realize the extent of his editing errors you pointed out, I remain astonished at the quantity of low-quality substubs of non-notable clergymen he created. It seems he single-handedly created 90% of Wikipedia's articles on priests, deans, and archdeacons, with a semi-closed ecosystem of lists, templates, and biographies on people often sourced only to chronologies, with no coverage of any substance, e.g. Joseph (Dean of Armagh) and Meiler a Búrc. There's certainly no guideline establishing automatic notability for these types of positions. Just wondering if you had any thoughts about somehow addressing these other than impossible one-by-one AFDs? Reywas92^Talk 04:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

In many cases, redirecting them is the best solution (e.g. for the many people who only had one position as archdeacon, redirecting to the article about the archdeacon title). The same goes for e.g. the many problematic articles about Indian or Nigerian bishops: redirect to the article on the diocese unless there is a decent, independent source in the article. People who want to keep these as separate articles are free to do the necessary legwork to make them error-free and adequately sourced. Fram (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The ewer with the head of a rooster

Hi Fram, about the article The ewer with the head of a rooster, I like to inform you that I brought it from Wikipedia French, “Aiguière à tête de coq”. My fault that I forgot to put the interlanguage ‘French’ tag on it and I’m not able to do that while the word draft is in the title. ّ May I ask if you could turn the title back to its original position so I can correct the tag. I appreciate your cooperation.Alex-h (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't you add the regular tags to the talk page? That's weird, why shouldn't this work?

PROD Query on Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kaymkulam

Hi there, recently you nominated the school stub page Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kaymkulam. As per WP:A7 the educational institutions are excluded. Awaiting the response. Onmyway22 talk 13:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"A7" means that they can't be nominated for speedy deletion, there are no restrictions on what can be nominated for a proposed deletion (what I did). Fram (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: Okay! Let it be.. Added them for contributing Wikiproject:School. And thanks for the reply! Onmyway22 talk 14:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Authority control parameters

Hi there, Fram. Thanks for showing interest in my articles. I see that in Elisabeth Glantzberg you added "Authority control (arts)|country=SV". I would be happy to use such details myself. Where can I find info about what can be added?--Ipigott (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott! At Template:Authority control (arts), you can see the different country parameters that can be added. If the country is not on the list, or if an article has close ties to more than one country, it's best not to add a parameter (it is not possible to add more than one at the moment). This template can be used on all arts-related articles instead of the general authority control one. I have vague plans to create similar ones for either other topics, or on a country basis, but I haven't done it so far (and I don't think anyone else has). All it does is call the general Authority Control template, and suppress all unnecessary links from it (e.g. the Czech national library for articles with no link to Czechia). Fram (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Anuna De Wever

Thank you for your much better explanation on the talk page there. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I'm usually not good with such things, but I try to be patient and explain things correctly. At best, it helps and the editor changes and/or disengages. At worst, it shows that the editor has had plenty of explanation and chances to change their approach. It's still a pity that we ditched the old "Verifiability, not Truth" adagio. Fram (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Lifesaving

Dear Fram. You recently left a couple of messages on my board and removed all the stubs I had just created to populate the article List of world records in life saving. Could you please be more specific when you say "before you create further articles, indicate how these (and similar ones) meet our notability guidelines". Where would be the appropriate place for me to have that conversation? I am struggling to understand how to move forward as I started the development of that page by first creating a well documented bio of one of the athletes who has extensive visibility and coverage on multiple fronts, but ended up being blocked because of my first hand knowledge of the subject and the page was demoted to draft with a violation warning. So I then moved on to create very short stubs of other world records holders who I do not know personally and with the aim of leaving other editors the responsibility of further development. As we know that didn't get approved either. I mean, there are sports that do not receive as much visibility as others, but that does not mean they don't deserve to be included in an encyclopedia. What is the right way for me to expand this very much underdeveloped topic? And if in the end we disagree on its merit, what are the procedures to include other editors in the conversation? Thanks Creiamo (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You could always post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming or (if you get no response there) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports to get wider input. In general, it doesn't matter if you are the best in your sport or rather mediocre; what matters for Wikipedia is the attention you have received from reliabe, independent sources (so not from the athlete, their club, the organisation of the sport, ...). Some sports get disproportionate amounts of attention, some get almost no attention: this doesn't reflect the capacities of the athletes or the effort, which is too bad, but in the end we can only go with what the outside world gives significant attention. Fram (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the honesty of your response as well as the leads. It might be a lost crusade, but I strongly believe that Wikipedia should use its power to break this vicious cycle rather than feed it. In my view people perceive the governing body of any sport to be the most reliable source available so that should be enough to get the ball rolling... Creiamo (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Random Wikidata question

Hoping you know an answer to a random question. This article displays two short descs: a local en-WP one (Abandoned village in Panama) and one oddly ungrammatical one pulled from text in Infobox Settlement (Depopulated in Colón, Panama). I'm guessing the second of these is actually drawn from Wikidata, to which the Infobox seems linked. If so and given your Wikidata knowledge, would you know a way of disabling this second short desc without having to delete the infobox itself? If not no problems as I'll keep asking around elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Although I'm glad if I can blame things on Wikidata, this time they have no responsability here. The second short description is created by the infobox, ut normally you shouldn't get to see this anywhere as long as the explicitly defined one ("abandoned ...") is present? If you want to improve the second description, you can change in the infobox "settlement_type = Depopulated" to "settlement_type = Depopulated village" or something similar. Fram (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, have done that as a workaround. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I saw something about this previously, the auto-overwrite for local works against Wikidata pulled descs, but doesnt over-write additional locally derived ones. Essentially you need to blank/remove the parameter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi OID, you mean in the infobox itself? Alas I tried that but it simply reverted to a default short desc of "Place." Fram's solution above works, just remove the local version and change the infobox contents to something that works as a short desc instead. But as a mild suggestion to whoever sets these things up, if we're going to automate short descs using infobox contents we should probably add details to each of the template docs for when that automated short desc needs revising. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

By default I think the infobox shortdesc should not apply if you're setting a local one on the article. See first paragraph after the bullet list in the doc: Automatically generated descriptions within templates should set the second parameter as noreplace so they do not override any short descriptions specifically added to the transcluding article. (which Module:Settlement short description is doing). So I dunno what's going on here, at a glance. Not sure if any of @Galobtter and Trialpears have time to check on this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Euryalus: When you say This article displays two short descs that's only because you're using custom styles that expose additional shortdescs. The system only recognises one shortdesc per article, which in this case would have been "Abandoned ..." (though I haven't checked) per what PR says. If that's the case, there is no issue. – SD0001 (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Shadeed Abdul Mateen

Hello, Fram,

I see you tagged this page for deletion but it seems like content that is also contained in Murder of Chen Shijun if you wanted to review this article, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There at least it is sourced, it seems, though still with obvious WP:BLPCRIME issues. I'll leave it alone for the moment, if it needs dealing with it will need admin tools on any case, so I can't really help there. Fram (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see an admin way of dealing with this other than deleting the entire murder article, and I'm not sure it is G10 worthy. I can't speed-read Chinese, but most sources do not have the full English name of the suspect, so I've removed it (and tried to make sure the article clearly says "suspect" everywhere and does not presume guilt). More eyes/improvements/ideas how to best proceed welcome. —Kusma (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Year in country category/old

Template:Year in country category/old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

1999 South Asian Football Federation Gold Cup

Only 6 teams participated in that edition. I am going to add squad details of other 2 teams.User_talk:Silverdragon3002

6 or 8, doesn't change the actual message. Fram (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1590s establishments in Switzerland

A tag has been placed on Category:1590s establishments in Switzerland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1596 in Switzerland

A tag has been placed on Category:1596 in Switzerland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1870 in Gaelic games

A tag has been placed on Category:1870 in Gaelic games indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fram,

As the main editor who looks over empty categories, I have asked those editors who create a lot of categories if they want to stop receiving these notices if a category they have created becomes empty. I'd like to ask you this as well. My only hesitation is that these notices have sometimes prompted you to investigate and find that categories have been emptied out-of-process, allowing that action to be reversed. That doesn't seem to be the situation with this three. Earlier this year, I stumbled on to a script that allows one to see any recent additions or subtractions to a category contents and it looks like the pages that were placed in these three have been deleted, not removed. I wish I had known about this script years ago but better now than never.

Still, if you find these CSD C1 notices are a bother, let me know and I'll skip sending them to you when I go through the daily list of empty categories. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Good Catch

Coming from this, you did a good job by nabbing the article in time, in my honest opinion I do not believe the article to be a genuine one, I may be wrong but that is my honest opinion. Thanks once more Fram. Celestina007 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Prince Andrew Romanoff

If you want to do a lot more of this kind of cleanup (or if you want to join me in my private, futile rage against royaltycruft editors from 6+ years ago) just check out all my contribs with edit summaries like "rem forum, blog, and image refs" and you'll find a shitload of now-unsourced sections in nobility biographies that could be removed. My favorite thing in the world is going through the "Titles and Honors" of modern holders of defunct-for-150-years fourth-tier princeships, manually replacing with {{CN}} all the Alamy and Pinterest pictures of the subject allegedly wearing some incestuous order as identified by royalty forum members that Mimich cited in 2012, reaching the end of a subsection, and realizing there are now no sources and I could've just placed {{unreferenced section}} instead... JoelleJay (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Grand Jojo

On 4 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Grand Jojo, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Years of the 16th century in Switzerland

A tag has been placed on Category:Years of the 16th century in Switzerland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1590s in Switzerland

A tag has been placed on Category:1590s in Switzerland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding my articles

Hello Fram I just want to know why you are nominating my articles for deletion?? JJking56 (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Because there is nothing to suggest that these loco sheds meet the notability requirements. Other such sheds have been deleted already in the past, as they rarely get a lot of attention apart from official reports. Fram (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

Can you help me on an issue I raised in ANI/SPI? Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Cargo Connect (Redirect)

Cargo Connect should not be a redirect due to its relativity to the subject. The First Lego League Challenge page states hardly anything on the subject and should not be changed yearly due to the change of fll season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MommaMia1231 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Great Iran Flood

Hi Fram, I had some minor input into the Great Iran Flood and prematurely curated it through before you placed it in draft. In hindsight, I should have checked the mirrored source more carefully but the NY times ref had me sold. I had also done a quick google search before hitting review and had quite a few sources pop up. Anyway I've added a few additional sources in now and would like your opinion as to whether you think the article is ready for the mainspace now. Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Fram! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Nomination of Anouk Geurts for deletion

A discussion is taking place to determine if the article Anouk Geurts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anouk Geurts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

StickyWicket (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Adan Santiago Goc-ong Igut

I agree with you that there is information that should not have been on Adan Santiago Goc-ong Igut and should not have been to the point that some of it required suppression. But WP:G10 requires that it be [[entirely negative in tone and unsourced and there clearly was information that was neutral and was sourced, if to imdb which is obviously not OK. But that doesn't, in my view, provide some G10 loophole for an entire page. I see Liz has since deleted it as G4, which I'm going to presume was appropriate and why I commented that I hadn't considered any other CSD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That's, will all due respect, bullshit. If you don't want to G10 pages which have unsourced information that requires suppression, in this case unsourced claims about the sexuality of a 12 year old, then just turn in your admin bit and let other people with some sense of responsability deal with this. TRHis is just outrageous. I thought you had somehow not read far enough and missed the most problematic bits (the remainder was largely a hoax as well anyway), but apparently you did see it but didn't feel like you needed to zap it on sight... Fram (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Even better, you are an arb and "I am currently serving as a member of the drafting commitee for Phase 2 of the Universal Code of Conduct." What a laugh. Fram (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

When looking at requests from experienced users like you I expect that the best option for handling disruptive content has been considered. That was not the case here it seems. Deleting an entire page when revdel (or suppression) would suffice does not strike me as outrageous and you certainly qualify in the experienced editor category understanding how both of those work. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See you at admin action review (or whatever that new board is called), I'll drop a note. Fram (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I am glad the discussion has closed, because I was seriously contemplating blocking you from that thread for a few hours to give you a chance to calm down. For goodness sake, is this really worth attacking everyone over? Above, I see you personally attacking an arb ... do you honestly want to give WMF Trust and Safety the ammunition they need to boot you off the site permanently? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Because Arbs are infallible and untouchable, and because you are a good judge of, well, anything? Do you really think that you are someone I would listen to? Fram (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please cool down

Hello, you suggested some helpfull improvements to my articel, thanks for that. But there is no point in putting every articel written by me in to Draft-Space. The last articel Sajid Mir was so obvers relevant and meets all criteria of Wikipedia, that your attitude is very unproductiv. Please cool down. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLPCRIME. We don't label living people "terrorists" without a conviction, and have to be very careful with articles about people being accused of being terrorists by the FBI and or the Mossad. They often will be right, but "often" isn't really good enough for our purposes. Fram (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I got your point. But please let me know your concerns via message. So I can work it out! Thanks --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

About 10K Projects

Hi Fram,

I am considering declining the... oops

I must admit that, knowingly at risk of WP:POINTY-ness, I was going to mention all the articles it could possibly be "what links here"-d to.

In its current shape, it's not ready for mainspace. Do think a better outcome all round would be WP:DRAFTIFY-ing?

What to you think? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, in retrospect I should have draftified it, and it may still be the best solution. The original creator doesn't give the impression of working on it. But thanks for adding the source and saving it from speedy deletion, that would have been wrong. Fram (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Alice Walker

Thankyou for nominating the article on Alice Walker (fencer) for deletion. The number of articles that we have on Olympians that do not meet our inclusion criteria that have existed since October 2021 is quite staggering. It also surprises me we have not seen more nominations on this matter, but it is probably best people double and triple check before moving forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I first look for sources, and if not enough can be found I redirect to the event where possible. Only if that doesn't work do I start an AfD. And I don't go looking for these all the time, but they do cross my path. Going through some lists of cricket players is enough systematic work for the moment. Fram (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No reason to remove KANTO agent database

This page KANTO – National Agent Data was requested so I do not understand why you would immediately need to delete it. Deletion does not seem appropriate for the moment. This page is important giving additional background information to the Wikidata item KANTO (Q104089764) and the wikidata property KANTO ID (P8980) THere are links to pages providing addtional information which was not copied to Wikipedia.Saarik (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to give background information to Wikidata, that's completely backwards. Who "requested" this page? Fram (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi Fram, a kitten for the civility you (and others:)) showed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Walker (fencer).

Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Fram (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerning speedy deletion

Hello dear admin you asked speedy deletion for my first article. I Beg you to leave that and let me add what is allowed on wikipedia give me just one week please on knees Imcherokeedazz (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerning speedy deletion

Hello dear admin you asked speedy deletion for my first article. I Beg you to leave that and let me add what is allowed on wikipedia give me just one week please on knees Imcherokeedazz (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article in Speedy Deletion

Hello Fram, how you doing? The article "List of abandoned properties in Hayden, Arizona" should not be in "Speedy Deletion" because the content in the Hayden, Arizona article was originally written by me. I have tried to include some of my images there, however a certain editor continued to remove them. That is why I wrote this article and used the information which I had created in the first place. Thank you and take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, admin-in-name-only. Do you have an actual policy-based reason why this gallery should be an article? Are the "abandoned properties of Hayden" a notable subject on their own? Or is it, as you basically admit here, a content fork because you can't use or win proper dispute resolution? Fram (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• When addressing me do it with respect! Addressing me as an "admin-in-name-only" is not only disrespectful it is also rude. Yes, the article is about how a prosperous mining town is becoming a "Ghost town" in modern times and the images that took and added serve to proof my point. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Respect is something you need to earn, and which is lost very easily. You felt the need to start about your admin status as if that had any bearing on the speedy deletion of your article, and it is a status you only use for that purpose apparently. You make irrelevant arguments for the retention of your content fork, and don't know the basics of talk page etiquette, but are very quick to be claiming "harassment" and so on. So I'll address you with the respect you deserve. Fram (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks

for catching my page in the wrong space. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles

Hi! Can you please justify your edit? Excellenc1 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

When there is this little to say about a subject, it is better to just include it in a list. Those micronations are a dime a dozen, and usually just get a mention for laughs. It has been noted, so it warrants a redirect and a list entry, but there's hardly any need to document this extensively. Fram (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: note also that the page has been recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles. The micronation seems to be so lacking in notability that it has never been mentioned in Baffins (which would have otherwise been a potential target of the redirect). —Kusma (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion nomintions

Thankyou for your well thought out deletion nominations. Especially the one for Maxwell Burns. The fact that that article in particular ever existed shows me that Wikipedia has a real big problem with articles being created on people who were not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I try. And I try to tackle some of the more challenging ones, as we have too many articles which push the boundaries way too far. Fram (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Maxwell Burns

I have to admit that I am downright shocked the extent to which some editors are willing to go to save an article on a child who died before that age of 5.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of The Bombay Tribune

Hii..Greetings!! Recently i have made changes in articles as per you suggested. Now it's very simple to read and have removed extra write- up as per your suggestion. Please have a look. Please publish I made so much efforts and research. It's about a classic Newspaper. Thank you so much 2409:4040:E0A:A9B9:7735:6B55:3DE3:A317 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Goldmines Telefilms Pvt Ltd

I added some data & refs in the Goldmines Telefilms Pvt Ltd, now it is qualify the notablity. I want u to remove deletion template from thata article.Success think (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine 1 University

I would advise (although I know full well that you may decide against taking my advice) against making any further edits to this page. I have several times been on the receiving end of this editor's goalpost-moving bludgeoning (twice having been taken to AfD) and whatever I say has come nowhere near persuading him that his first knee-jerk opinion was wrong, however good and however numerous the sources that I find. I'm amazed that such an incompetent editor has been allowed to continue for years. I think it's that he's so incompetent that nobody can understand what he is saying, but instead of admitting that people are pretending that they do understand and thinking that there's more than randomness in it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to have died down now, but I'm equally amazed about the extreme stubbornness and IDHT behaviour. I haven't noticed this yet in other AfDs, if I would spot a pattern it's something I definitely would try to get action on (voluntarily or forced). Fram (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement recanted - Mutual removal request

Hello Fram. On the AN discussion, I have changed my statement to remove the “official” part of the 3RR rule being broken. Would you be willing to change your reply, “If you want to accuse people of "officially" and "unofficially" (???) breaking 3RR, you better provide evidence or retract your claims. Incorrect accusations only reflect badly on the accuser” as the statement being referred to has been altered. Thank you and have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how discussions on ANI (or anywhere on enwiki) are done, I hoped you would know that by now. You can strike part of your original post, or you can reply, but you should never simply change it like that (and I'm even less impressed with the way you changed it, which made it look as if I claimed that they had unofficially broken 3RR). Fram (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

pronoun

Just a quick fyi that you've misgendered that candidate, I would have fixed it for you but I didn't want to look all pointy. :) valereee (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected, I didn't pay attention. Fram (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Riddell Burns

Fram - I do not have a 'copy' of the article to access. How can you make one available so that I can alter and copy paste it on our Researching the Life and Times of Robert Burns Club (N0.2262) Facebook site? A lot of work went into writing it. Rosser Gruffydd 11:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Here you go. Fram (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks Fram. Rosser Gruffydd 14:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK

I don't want to drag our conversation at that RfA further off topic, so I hope you don't mind if I continue here. I'm all for high standards of fact checking for Main Page content; a question is whether that needs to be balanced with the wishes for sufficient throughput that are connected to having a nice editing game that encourages editors. There's also the question how to have a collegial atmosphere where people treat each other with kindness while still not allowing nonsense on the Main Page. Hooks of the form "Did you know that X was the first Y to do Z" are notorious for being easy to verify with "reliable" sources while still failing to be true (as your aviator example; really, people should have stopped to think and check), so they require people paying attention to detail who actually try to fact check instead of just providing a tick. Still, my feeling is that DYK standards have been improving in practice, and it might be helpful (and possible) to formally ask for higher quality articles and higher quality reviews. But I'm usually too optimistic in such matters (and I have no hard data to back up my observations other than "far fewer DYK articles get deleted as copyvios than in 2006", which isn't exactly a high standard). Do you have a suggestion how to improve things? —Kusma (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming here. I have no interest to get back into DYK and all the problems surrounding it (and I know that I am the one that brought it up, so I'm not blaming you). I thought standards had improved, but looking at this and the CofE debacle makes me wonder. But I leave it to others to check and correct, I've tried long and hard and it maily resulted in getting a T&S ban, so that's not really the best use of my time. Fram (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, good point, we need an approach that doesn't get anyone banned. I guess having a few more people with their critical thinking hats on going through T:DYK/Q every day would be beneficial, but possibly the eligible people are all off playing for GAN backlog points right now. —Kusma (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Steve Clark (actor)

Hello Fram, I'm the creator of the article of American actor Steve Clark (actor), I now that you placed a tag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because you noticed that the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate. Just for you to now that the actor has 319 credits on his career, also in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Clark (actor) John Pack Lambert (talk) said that it shoud be deleted because it lacked of reliable sources providing signifant coverage with Find-a-grave and IMDb sources not been reliable, it should be noted that I put them only as temporary sources until I found more reliable, which I already did and I already replaced the Find-a-grave and IMDb sources with more reliable sources that proves a signifant coverage. It should also be noted that this article is still under construction and I'm also fixing some other minor problems. I already write my reasons and my proofs of why this article should not be deleted on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Clark (actor) to which you haven't closed yet, so would it be possible please that you to close the discussion and remove the Speedy deletion nomination tag from the article?Latyelcop (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

XRV

Please find a way to be more agreeable at XRV. Your ultra-hostile approach is doing a lot to kill that board (remember the last time you were there?). Seriously, I know this is something a lot of people have asked you before, and I'm going to ask you again. You are very good at spotting problems. Please find a way to raise problems without setting everything around you on fire. Take a class or read a book on communication or just ask someone you know and whose opinion you value for some advice. Because it really, really does harm when the temperature is always set to boil. Levivich 14:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No. (and the XRV acronym is just stupid) Fram (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's see. First reply[2] = ultra-hostile approach? Not really, no. Second reply[3] hard to see issue with this either. Jimfbleak then comes along and accuses me of making stuff up[4]. A message from you about this ultra-hostile approach from the one who is at fault here? No, didn't think so. So, my reply to you remains "no". Fram (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you've engaged in self-evaluation of your first response and determined it was "not really" ultra-hostile. Next time, please aim for "not at all" ultra-hostile. Levivich 14:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be begging for such a one now. I hope the problem is simply your reading comprehension and not that you are deliberately trying to troll. Then again, I remembered where I most recently noticed your much better approach at dealing with perceived issues without being ultra-hostile: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron (yes, ironically, the very situation where people thought creating "XRV" (ugh) would be a solution to the toxic atmosphere. For some reason, you couldn't simply support or politely disagree with the opposers, no, you had to blanket address "the poor quality of oppose rationales" posted by what you describe as "immature admins I've come across are all adults, including several in the oppose column who have done stuff way less mature than what they're pointing to as grounds to oppose.", followed by "Also the notion that one year isn't long enough, or that there is something wrong with an admin candidate wanting to be an admin, are further evidence of poor judgment and poor reasoning skills by adults. ". Of course, that wasn't sufficient, you then needed to badger opposes and started attacking me in a very hostile manner over issues no one else seemed to perceive as issues (you can see that with e.g. Kusma, an adult, civilized discussion was perfectly possible). Anyway, to get back to your original post, thanks for reminding me again whose opinion I most certainy won't ask if I need some advice on how to defuse a situation and take a non-hostile approach. Fram (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You've at some point asked someone for advice on how to defuse a situation and take a non-hostile approach? What did they say? Levivich 15:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Bye, troll. Fram (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Dutch architects projects in Education category

Hello dear Fram,

I figured out that you moved the page (Dutch architects projects in Education category), so i have started to categorize the dutch architects according to their projects in Education design and i would like to submit this . i noticed that even i need to change the title name. may you please help me to improve the content ?how and what should i add or which title can be suitabe ?thank you in advnace.

Amir.mansour1370 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to have separate pages per country/subject combination for architecture, it would create endless lists. Most of these architects are not known specifically for their school projects (not more so than their other work at least), and there doesn't seem to be a Dutch "School" of school architecture which is noted as a group: so this article grouping seems somewhat artificial. I also have my doubts whether your English is good enough to contribute here (or certainly to write articles), they will need a lot of cleanup to be acceptable. We have Wikipedia versions in all somewhat major and many small languages, contributing in another language may be easier for you. Fram (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Medaillon" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Medaillon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#Medaillon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. PoundTales (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hope not too annoying

Hello Fram. Regarding this MfD, associated with [[this AfD, I hope I was not too annoying and can be forgiven given that the right outcome was reached soon enough. As someone mentioned, there is a history of namespace page moves to allow a choice of XfD making trouble. I think it is important to keep certain processes, XfD and draftifications working right (“working right” is open for debate), and apologise if taking this line was a frustration. I wanted to note that I agree that BLPCRIME is important, and that had’ve your MfD nomination not been preceded by the namespace move, the rationale would have been good for me for deletion from draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. No, you werent' annoying, the clash between the rules and how best to deal with BLP issues is sometimes annoying but it's not as if you were restoring some unsourced attack page. It's not the approach I would have taken, but it's not something I hold against you at all. Fram (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of Watertown, New York

Why should Timeline of Watertown, New York get deleted if Timeline of Briarcliff Manor is just fine despite being 4 times smaller? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 15:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I saw your article when watching new articles, and I don't think it belongs here. This says nothing about any other articles, we have way too many for anyone to know or monitor them. I have given the arguments why I think it doesn't belong; "but another article" is not a rebuttal to those. Fram (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

boom it was just closed as keep i wish i could be even less professional then I already am but then we would start breaking rules so I'll just put this gif here and call it a day

this is a triumph for all of mankind

Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 02:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

USS Littlehales (AGSC-15)

Note that http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/yard/yf854.htm is a direct copy of the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships - - see also https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/l/littlehales-ii.html.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Posting public domain text as if they are their own words is still a clear no-go of course. I see on their talk page quite a few earlier warnings both for copyvio and for copying without attribution... Fram (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Problems with the copyvio tool

It looks like there's a problem with copyvios.toolforge.org. For example, League of Free Youth currently gives me Violation Unlikely 0.0%. Assuming good faith that the tagging is correct, this implies the tool is broken. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can people please stop relying on tools and start using their head instead. It is a translation, of course the tool can't find that. I just had to explain this to a problem editor, okay, but an admin / afc reviewer / copyright checker should really know better (but then again, such a person should know WP:INVOLVED as wellwithout people needing to explain it at ANI probably). Fram (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1957 establishments in Swaziland

A tag has been placed on Category:1957 establishments in Swaziland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert status of Church of Our Lady of Zvonik

Greetings Fram, issues have been raised regarding Church of Our Lady of Zvonik. I was informed recently that I needed to attributed to the section used from the larger article and embed it within the text so this was not willful noncompliance. I had just not got round to it being a full-time educator. I will add however that it is not bizarre that I used a section from Trpimir I of Croatia in the article as he authorised a charter, that documents his decision to build a church and the first Benedictine monastery in Rižinice, between the towns of Klis and Solin... Solin is near Split and the section was in reference to a bishop being appointed to oversee churches in Split, like St. Martins. Since then, I have expanded the section because right now editing Wikipedia is the most vital thing anyone can do (insert sarcasm). Therefore can you please reinstate the page? I never look for phrase or support on this platform (hell knows I never do) but having long term health issues it would be nice not to just be treated like moron or retard every time I make a mistake, if I did that in my professional capacity I would be sacked! and rightly so! I do think administrators and senior editors need to recognise that not everyone is familiar with every rule, bylaw and convention on this platform and a bit of understanding would not go amiss. Thank you.  The Emperor of Byzantium  (talk) 12:09, 27 Feb 2022 (UTC)

You can take your attitude elsewhere, I have no interest in helping people who produce such self-pitying whining. Fram (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That is quite a churlish and indeed a childish response to my statement (which I would expect better from a senior editor). Such language could be interpreted as bullying Wikipedia:WikiBullying or at least degrading behaviour on your part! I have long-standing mental health issues (which I make no secret about), and your statement is not in any form a constructive commentary... Can you please retract your last statement; thank you!  The Emperor of Byzantium  (talk) 10:55, 05 Mar 2022 (UTC)

If you have such serious mental health issues, and feel treated like a moron or a retard when someone simply indicates mistakes you have made, then for your own health it would be better if you found another hobby. If you hadn´t started with treating my behaviour as suspicoous on your own talk page, then perhaps your first message here would have gotten some sympathy. As for the contents, when one reads the draft article now, it still is completely unclear what that section about Trpimir is doing there, as it has no clear connection to the subject at all. All in all, I have no interest in helping you. You are free to raise the issue of my supposed bullying to an admin noticeboard of course. Fram (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

I got your talk page message. I actually don't remember making that edit. As a matter of fact, I do not even remember visiting that page. I am very familiar with WP:DRAFTNOCAT, and I know for a fact that your edits were constructive. I must have misclicked something on Redwarn without realizing it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a relief. Happened to me as well in the past. It seemed out of character (and out of the blue) when looking at your other edits, but hard to be sure without asking. Fram (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TableSalt342

Hello, Fram,

Do you remember this editor? Well, I just ran into a new account, TableSalt43. But they are not in any way similar, totally different editing interests. Do you think this was just an unfortunate username choice? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Not clear yet if they are related, but the new editor has also some problems. I'll look further into it. Fram (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

HMS Petunia (K79)

I declined the G12 on HMS Petunia (K79) (after trimming further the account of the ship's loss) as there is enough free-content left on the page after the copyvio stuff has been excised as to still be worth preserving - I have also left a note on the article talk page to attribute the stuff copied from Flower-class corvette. Whether it needs some revdel of the history is a different question. Of more concern are that this does not appear to be an isolated page - is this CCI territory?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is, yes. They have a long history of unattributed copies from within Wikipedia, and of unattributed copies of public domain content (US military sources), but also from time to time pure copyright violations, like the three I noted today. I see little evidence that these are the only occurrences, nor that it will end. I have warned them that further instances may get them blocked, but for past occurrences a CCI may be the best solution (there are e.g. articles with probable copyvios but where I couldn't access the original source, perhaps others have more luck). Cleaning up such translations is probably one of the hardest CCI tasks though, as they are much harder to find than most "regular" copyvios. Fram (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the volume of articles that they are churning out - they are producing articles at such a rate as most of them will go unchecked, while the quality (even ignoring copyvio/attribution problems) is very variable, which in itself just asks more questions.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I encountered them a few times during new page patrol and nominated a bunch of articles for deletion, but it is indeed quite a lot to deal with (and they have "autopatrolled" so most new page patrollers don't look at these pages anyway). Fram (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi Fram, you might wish to take a look at WP:ANI#Unprofessional behaviour.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Smart Grade Company

I was searching about some industrial projects in India in internet and later I got this. I found it very interesting and attractive so I though to make a page on it. But couldn't find more information I don't know that is this a real company or fraud company. Please tell now what to do. - Thank You User:BangsMetala — Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You can start with explaining where you e.g. got the $1.5 billion revenue from. Fram (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled tight

Should Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case say "autopatrolled tight" instead of "Right"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. Fram (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well....

that was awkward... Didn't even think to check the provenance of it. Early diffs of the other page might need RD1, but I can deal with that. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to check for everything :-) I just had to withdraw an AfD, so I'm not going to bash someone for missing something! Fram (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit at The Ring Thing!

Have you considered writing an essay summing up the kinds of cleanup you find yourself doing around issues of Wikidata in (English) Wikipedia? I see that more than one section of this talk page has to do with that, and I think it could be helpful for editors who contribute to one or both projects. Arlo James Barnes 17:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I already have a few people who take my issues with the use of Wikidata on enwiki very personal, and seem to consider pointing out issues with Wikidata and Wikidata-based templates, infoboxes, lists... as a personal insult. It looks as if too many of the pro-Wikidata-on-enwiki group are more part of a cult than capable of rational discussion about the pros and cons, and my creation of an essay would only fan their flames. Fram (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Cornwall Combination Exclusion's of page

Fram, I'm JosetheTenderEngine, creator of page 1959-60 Cornwall Combination , and because you put it to deletion, quickly deleting is not cool, since it's hard to find information about this tournament other than Cornwallcomboleague, just because the article is incomplete, tournaments as this only has this site I mentioned to find, I thought about putting an image, but as images of this tournament are hard to find, I won't put images, what I suffered to do because I did it 3 times in a row I couldn't.I've done other pages like 1939-40 Serie da Galicia and 2016-17 División de Honor, even though they're already complete. Jose the Tender Engine (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your message isn't very clear, but in general;: if you notice that it is so hard to find information about something, just don't create an article on it. Not everything that ever happened needs an article here, only things which already have gotten enough attention from other, independent, reliable sources. Fram (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content without discussion or alert

Hi, I'm dropping by on behalf of Parsedan who left a concerned message on my talk page about a page he recently created (Jeanne II d'Albret) being removed and redirected without any discussion or even alerting the author of the page. I don't claim to be an expert in notability guidelines, but I was concerned because the editor is clearly acting in good faith, has a solid track record, and is genuinely concerned about the correct way to voice his opinion without causing strife. Despite that, their article was removed without any consensus or even a heads-up, with the only explanation given for the removal being an edit summary. Anyways, I wanted to give you a heads up that I'm going to start a discussion at Arthur III, Duke of Brittany. Even if the article isn't notable, I feel like the author deserves an explanation as to why; even speedy deletion nominations give an alert to the editor and can be contested. Thanks, Fritzmann (message me) 03:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Any reason why they didn't come here and simply ask? Articles get created boldly and without discussion, articles get redirected boldly and without discussion, that's the nature of Wikipedia. There is no reason to first discuss everything, many editors have their articles redirected and see the logic of this straightaway, others revert or contest it (because they don't see the logic, or because redirecting it was the wrong thing to do of course). None of this is a problem, something to be concerned about it, or an indication that either editor didn't act in good faith. Fram (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS

Although it is very odd, in the WP:WPNAMES space, it seems people rely on articles that in other spaces would not be considered WP:RS. I saw your edit at Charleston (name). I understand full well what RS is about. However, researching names seems to be a different science. Is it reasonable that in certain fields standards could be different.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec)That's a reason to give the people at the Names Wikiproject some talking to, not to abandon our policy of course. While the standards are even higher for some topics (medical subjects come to ming), we don't have subjects where the standards may be lower than our sourcing policy. Such disambiguation pages don't need such background, ut if we give it it should be based on good sources, not baby names sites or dubious commercial "heraldic" ones. Fram (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

O.K. let's bring this discussion there. Because, there is a whole lot to undo, if we don't want to let these sources slide.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please withdraw your AfD

I request that you voluntarily and speedily withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States federal judges who died in active service. It is premised on a factual error, and one that is dispelled by a source in the article. If you will not withdraw the nomination, please withdraw the factually incorrect claim that this is a "fairly common occurrence", or provide a source supporting your claim, since it is currently counterfactual to a source that has now been provided. BD2412 T 08:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Your list is so long that you have to divide it in three parts, but you are offended that I call it a "fairly common occurrence"? Right... Perhaps you could avoid creating sandoxes in the mainspace for starters, the article is at the level one would expect of a newbie, not from a very experienced editor. So, no. Fram (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The list is a fraction of the length of the longstanding List of United States Congress members who died in office. I am not offended that you call it a "fairly common occurrence". I have provided a reliable source which states that it is an uncommon occurrance (modernly only 8.7% of federal judges) and literally says that it is a myth that this is a common occurrance. You are welcome to present a source to the contrary, but barring that, you seem to be prioritizing your assumption over the source. BD2412 T 08:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't literally say that, and it also states that it used to be 1/3rd for the older period, which is also at AfD. The "myth" is that all judges hang on for dear life, and in reality most resign. This is not a contradiction to my claims at all, and simply repeating incorrectly that your source contradicts my claim doesn't make it true. It happened in 20% of the cases, so that's fairly common. No idea why you keep bringing up other lists, perhaps you aren't very familiar with AfD and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Fram (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The point of the other lists is that these are similarly situated members of a coequal branch of government. If we have such lists for members of the legislative branch, it logically follows that we should have such lists for members of the judicial branch. BD2412 T 09:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No. One group is selected for a certain period, the other for life (they can resign, but that's their own choice). Nothing indicates that both groups (and their deaths while in office, as a group phenomenon) get the same level of attention, which can give a reason why one group can have an article and the other not. And finally, I have no idea if we should have that other list or not, but whataboutism rarely works. Fram (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

By your own announced standards (the length of the lists), dying in Congress is more "common". Of course, you are entitled to your view on the matter, even if it is wrong. BD2412 T 09:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think continuing this pointless "discussion" here (more you trying to make some nebulous point that your lists should be kept because otherstuffexists) will lead to anything productive. Your lists must stand or fail on their own merits, not in comparison to whatever other list you are dragging into this. That's basic AfD stuff, ut just like basic article creation stuff, it doesn't seem to apply to you. Oh, and the "speedy keep" rules aren't of any interest to you either it seems. Never mind the meaning of the word "literal" and so on. Please keep your waste of time to the AfD and stop posting the same stuff here. Fram (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for Regionals leagues(the less relevant articles)

Hello, im Jose the Engine(the old Jose the Tender Engine)i need to make more wrc rally articles, the Tour de Corse work,i need to focus on pages that will be relevant (I need to stop with regional championship articles because I realized it doesn't work) well, I have to stop with articles from regional division seasons, (I realized that deleting less relevant article makes sense) Jose the Engine (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Charles

I have noticed that you have removed {{Charles}} when you remove references. I don't think this makes sense, but am open to your explanation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

An extremely long template of names which may or may not have the same origin, but which in any case are not a defining characteristic of the people listed on the separate subpages. People looking for the "right" Giancarlo are in general not interested in people with the surname Carlzon (or at least not more so than they may be interested in people with the name Smith or Jackson). Adding "see also" for very similar names where confusion is possible is a good thing; but an overwhelming navigational aid for other disambiguation pages seems totally unnecessary. Fram (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you assume people land on the page to look at the list rather than to learn about things like the origin or region of prevalence of the name? If people want to learn about the name other similarly derived names (regardless of spelling similarity) could be important to them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Then that information should be in the article, and sourced to good sources. I have no objection to Giancarlo linking to John and Charles, but there is no need to have a template with endless other variations to get to this information? In many cases, the "original region" you had added, sourced to houseofnames, was total nonsense. It is better to have no information than to have incorrect one. Fram (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not my field. There are not readily available sources on the web that would meet the WP:RS threshold even though they are often summarizing sources that we would accept. I was summarizing what I could find.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the Berceuses radio article

Hello,

This is not a contest towards the deletion, however I was wondering if my recent edits of adding the sources of le Parisien and le Monde would be sufficient to remove the deletion contest for Berceuses (radio station.

Thanks! Pohjamadesse1 (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, a lot better! I have removed the request to delete it. Fram (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Museums disestablished in 1855

A tag has been placed on Category:Museums disestablished in 1855 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:BLP unsourced

Template:BLP unsourced has been nominated for merging with Template:Unreferenced. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Crooked Cop Air" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Crooked Cop Air and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 5#Crooked Cop Air until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative England Wales and Scotland

Thanks very much for bringing this article to articles for deletion. It led to improvements on the page that may not have happened otherwise. Vahvistus (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Most people don't take an AfD so graciously (which is somewhat understandable, it isn't fun if someone thinks your work should be deleted), it is refreshing to be thanked for one. The page now is indeed much better, thank you for your hard work! Fram (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative England Wales and Scotland

Thanks very much for bringing this article to articles for deletion. It led to improvements on the page that may not have happened otherwise. Vahvistus (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Most people don't take an AfD so graciously (which is somewhat understandable, it isn't fun if someone thinks your work should be deleted), it is refreshing to be thanked for one. The page now is indeed much better, thank you for your hard work! Fram (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Geneva, Kentucky Draft

Hello you posted this into drafts and said something about the population being for the county. But I got the info from Census here [5]. It is the population for the area. What else needs to be done to bring this live? Turnoffthat (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is the population for the "area", the complete county; not the population of Geneva, Kentucky. So why did you include it as if it was the population for Geneva specifically? The source doesn't even mention Geneva. Fram (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the nomination of the deletion of the Czech flag lists

I was going to add in more infomation about the flags because these lists needs a revamp. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to show in one of the lists what you intended. The oldest one (the main one, with the Prague flags) was unreferenced since February and had no further information, so that didn't inspire confidence that the remainder would be any better. Fram (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

All of them. I suggest you had to withdraw your AFD until all info was added and it will talk more than couple weeks. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can't even begin to show it, I have no intention or reason to withdraw these AfDs. Fram (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Why? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You must have some idea on what you were going to do with these articles; which sources to use, what type of info to add, ... You can present this at the AfD directly, or by e.g. starting to edit one of the articles. If you show that e.g. List of municipal flags of Central Bohemian Region could make an acceptable article, I would have no reason to think that you couldn't do the same for the other articles and would happily withdraw the AfD for these others as well. But if all you have is words but nothing at all to show for them, then I have no reason to stop the AfD process. In general, instead of making a series of unacceptable articles (as they stand), you'ld do better to create one acceptable one before moving on to the next one, this would avoid these problems (and if you couldn't get the one article up to acceptable standards, it would save yo uthe trouble of creating the other ones). I see now, when going through the history of your talk page, that you have created many problematic articles in the past, including ones I nominated for deletion (which got deleted after the AfD). So this gives me even less reason to believe that you will actually turn these into acceptable articles. I may be wrong, obviously, but I have no reason at all to just accept your statements without anything at all to support them. Fram (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that I am not able to make acceptable articles? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to say that you are capable of and have a history of producing unacceptable articles. I haven't checked if these are just some or all of your articles. Fram (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

What is example of an acceptable article? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

One that wouldn't be deleted or redirected at AfD when challenged? Fram (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

So, what can I do instead of creating unacceptable articles? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit existing articles, correct errors in them, add good sources, ... There are 6 million + articles, many of them in need of care and attention. Fram (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

In regards to the Czech flags, can Czech flag websites be good sources? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The Rekos site is a good site (primary, so not helping for notability, but reliable: the information on it should be correct and trustworthy), and the same goes for the official site of a municipality or a district. But this one seems dubious, it looks like a commercial site which scrapes information from elsewhere, not a site with actual journalistic content. Fram (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked up the Rekos site (once again) and apparently, it is a symbol registry connected to the Czech Parliament. Since it may take time to add these sources, there goes nothing. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)